A simple problem, Israel: If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer? Could it be c'=c-Vo?

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Pentcho

    You have to understand that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.

    The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.

    Israel

    I'm in if we can talk about Life, the Universe and Everything.

    • [deleted]

    Again: If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer, Israel? Is dividing distance by time difficult? Extremely difficult? Impossible? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Answer:

    Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c. Tony Harker is wrong, this: "and our results will be applicable to sound or to light" is false. It is misleading and confusing. If people think that this is true, they will think that for light the speed will be c-Vo as it is for sound.

    Israel

    • [deleted]

    Israel: "Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c"

    But the frequency is f'=(c-Vo)/L in BOTH cases:

    http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

    Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

    See no problem? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      Hi Guys

      Nice hearing about you again!

      Shawn

      Thank you for reading my essay and for the stimulating comments, I really appreciate them. It is a surprise to gather here three guys from the same city. Daryl and Edwin are very smart guys, you should read their essays too. It took me some time to reply because I prefered to read yours first so I have a little more background to get your comments. I found your essay well structured and focused in a specific topic. I like that.

      I fully agree that the maximum energy is an important assumption. I made this consideration a couple of years ago, derived from the fact that there must be a minimum length scale (similar to the maximum speed assumption). When I started to search in the literature for this theme I realized that there was already a theory that accounts for this. It is called Doubly special relativity or deformed special relativity. Check the article in wikipedia. This formulation was developed for flat space, and it is claimed that the theory is a particular case of the more general loop quantum gravity. I suggest you take a look at them for comparison.

      As to the GKZ limit, perhaps you may be confused, since I did not mention it in my essay. In any case, this is one of the most important problems in physics. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the details of this topic and I am afraid I could not be of great help here.

      Daryl

      I replied to you in relation to the red shift. I would be glad if you could leave me some comments. Of course, you guys are also invited to express any comment about this hot topic.

      Cheers

      Israel

      Pentcho

      Please do not open a new post every time you reply, keep in the same conversation.

      Thanks

      When professor Roger Barlow says: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound...

      He is saying that the phenomenon of frequency change (called Doppler effect) occurs to all kind of waves, i.e., all waves undergo frequency change due to the relative motion between the source and the observer. He is not saying that the formulas has the same physical interpretation as to the velocity of the waves, but only in relation to the frequencies. That the same formula applies for both kind of waves does not mean that the speed of light is additive as the speed of sound.

      Sorry Pentcho, you keep asking the same questions over and over and you do not understand that the speed of light hast to be c in any inertial system, whether you use an approximation or not.

      I also told you that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.

      The speed of light is always c in any direction and way,it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.

      • [deleted]

      Roger Barlow: "In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point."

      That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point is c.

      Roger Barlow: "A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)."

      That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving point (moving observer) is c+v.

      See also:

      http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

      "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

      http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/fangyuhlo/Attachment/031016202571.pdf

      Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."

      http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

      Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. THIS TIME, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      Dear Israel, this is the reply of part 1

      ''You: What I have tried... ...the problem

      The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to the continuous activity of the vacuum.''

      This is not the point. The point is the lack of an equilocality relation between any two time slices. You cannot know if a quantum vacuum field is unchanging without a first reference frame to identify points (say, (x,y,z)=(0,0,0))

      in different time slices. I have argued better for this in my response to your post in my essay (for anyone interested following the discussion,

      Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else?. If you can provide a way of defining a preferred position by using the ZPF (this is the same as defining an equilocality relation) then you could finally see the PSR. But even if that is the case, one may argue that QM is background dependent and that GR´s main lesson is backgound independence such that the final theory of QG should be background independent. Again, any assumption will ultimately be used upon its usefullness, and this is something you have argued I fully agree.

      '' One unrealistic situation that I found in the idea of a snapshot is that one cannot take instantaneous pictures of an event, basically for two reasons: First because the uncertainty principle will play the role in the outcome of the snapshot and second because an instant implies an interval of zero time which is physically inconceivable and experimentally unrealizable (although mathematically is possible). The idea that a snapshot captures an instant of time is misleading. One can only capture intervals of time different from zero (this is also stated in the uncertainty principle delta t delta E=h). And the problem comes from the mathematical representation of space and time as a continuum.''

      You have made a good point, and I will explain why the snapshot argument is still valid in quantum domain. First, you argue that the deltaX*deltaP>h/2 part of the uncertainty principle make the task of even taking a snapshot impossible. But, if we are to consider quantum effects we should change the argument a bit: imagine we have a the information of the existence of a WAVE FUNCTION y(x,y,z,t0). A moment later the wave function has changed to y´(x,y,z,t1). Now we can only compare these wave functions if we have a procedure to indentify (x,y,z) points in different time slices. And the snapshot argument shows that the presence of a field defined over the whole space does not provide such an equilocality relation. One needs a background for that, and the ZPF, by being a field cannot be taken as a background (due to the snapshot argument). If by some procedure the ZPF can be used to define an equilocality relation, then everything is different. I invite you to think about it, if you can design such a procedure that would be very interesting.

      Now adressing the deltaE*deltaT>h/2 part of your argument, I agree that we extrapolate our empirical experiences to conceving motion as evolving continuously on time. But if you feel too uncomfortable with that, we should change all QM, because QM describes the continuous motion of wave functions(or kets/bras, or field values, if you wish)!! The snapshot arguments goes well for exploring the fundamental properties of continuous motion.

      ''Weistrass assigned to each value of a variable t a corresponding value of the function x and defined a one-to-one correspondence between an element of a domain and its counterpart in the image group. By doing this he got rid of the problem of infinitesimals (small intervals). Which misled physicists by making them think that a physical object can occupy a point in space and time. Mathematically this is correct, but physically is inconsistent since physical objects occupy space intervals (volumes) and things occur within time intervals. In a point of time (interval of zero magnitude) nothing occurs, everything seems to be frozen and if nothing changes how can we justify motion?

      If one assumes that space-time is physically continuous (composed of adimensional points) one arrives at the well know zeno's paradoxes. This is a topic I do not wish to address here. And like I said, despite these paradoxes, the continuum conception has been useful so far.''

      Agreed. Nevertheless, it remains an interesting proposal to fill these gaps of the continuum assumption.

      ''You: but experimental evidence, at least to the extent that I know, has never produced such information... ...No experiment has ever revealed a preferred position, but a theory built upon a PSR would necessarily refer to such positions (I can't see how it could be done otherwise, if you have any idea please tell me). So this is why I concluded that the concept of PSR much be REALLY useful if we are going to introduce it.

      There are many experiments claiming the detection of the PSR, but since the PSR is not even recognize by the mainstream of physics they are not widely known. My reference 17 (Eq. 3.14 for instance) shows that in principle the PSR can be detected. There I explain that the measurement of velocities is not a trivial task as most people think.''

      That is very interesting. The detection of the PSR however must provide us a way to define a PREFERRED position. I haven´t read your paper in full detail I would be very grateful if you can provide a quick summary on the relation between your paper and preferred positions. Also, there´s a work of people in MIT who have captured the motion of light with a supercamera of 1 trilion frames per second (I must also admit I don´t know all the details of this experiment). I have posted the video in the response in my entry. It would be interesting if you can explain the relation of that with your work.

      ''Your arguments to refute the PSR are the same arguments that have been given against the PSR since the special relativity was put forward. I have laid down some arguments in my previous reply to you and I think that my essay gives some others. The special relativity has used the principle of relativity to establish that there are no PSR, to argue that there is no privileged observer for the description of physical phenomena. All systems of reference are equivalent. And I think this is misleading. They are equivalent not because there is PSR but because an experiment has the same result no matter its state of motion, absolute rest or motion.''

      It´s a possibility. Now if we can do it without a PSR, why should we introduce a PSR? The discussion inevitably goes to the paradoxes the PSR assumptions solves according to you.

      '' I am going to express how the principle of relativity should be really understood. Just keep in mind that above all physics is not only a theoretical science but also an experimental one. So, imagine an observer equipped with his measuring instruments at rest in the PSR, i.e., in vacuum/aether. He then performs a series of experiments to find the relations among the different physical quantities. From these results he arrives at the formulation of the laws of physics.''

      Ok.

      ''He then put his whole equipment in a rocket and moves at a constant speed in relation to the PSR.''

      How is he going to know wheter he´s at rest or moving in relation to the PSR? The PSR is invisible. (Again, if you can show how ZPF could provide a preferred position, then thing would become more interesting).

      ''Then, he performs the same experiments and the same operations in the rocket to find the laws of physics. For his surprise he finds the same laws as those he found while in the PSR. He then arrives at the reasonable conclusion that the laws of physics should be the same in any other system of reference and hence establishes the principle of relativity. So far so good, but here it comes the anxious question: What experimental reasons does the observer have to reject the PSR despite the fact that he cannot identify with his experiments whether he is really at rest or in motion relative to the PSR? One will easily realize that there is no experimental argument to refuse the PSR, since he knows that the same laws will be found everywhere.''

      The question actually is the following: why even bother introducing the PSR if the information it provides is unobservable?? You can take any physical theory and introduce 15 dimensions for instance, and then say they are simply unobservable. Is this procedure reasonable? Yes if these new dimensions are useful for something, but if we can do it without the 15 dimensions we definitely should! The same applies for th PSR. Once again, our discussion should turn to the problems the PSR solve-we should not bother so much discussing wheter the PSR assumption is legimate by its own existence.

      '' If our friend accepts the existence any other system, why should he reject the PSR? Do you have an experimental argument to refuse it?

      No. Nor I have arguments to accept it. It is not wrong or right per se, all that really matters is its utility or lack of it. But again, if we can do it without the PSR (and without all kinds of unobservable statements) then we should.

      Daniel

      This is the reply of part 2

      ''Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist.''

      Certainly. Its like the 15 dimensions case I argued above. Again, if we can achieve a theory as good as the PSR one which has less unobservable data, we should prefer it.

      '' In my previous post, I asked you take a look at my reference 17. There I explain, for instance, that the one-way speed of light cannot be experimentally determined and it has never been measured. So, if I follow your same line of reasoning I could argue that the second postulate of special relativity is meaningless because it can never be experimentally verified.''

      Yes, for instance if we could produce a theory solely upon observable data (round trip time measurements) then we should prefer it. I´m assuming that you´re right and the one way speed of light is not possible to determine even in principle, altough I didn´t read your paper in details.

      ''Again the determination of the one-way speed of light is a technical problem but the fact that it cannot be measured does not imply that (in an isotropic and homogenous space) the speed of light is not isotropic. In this same article I made the calculation of the measurement of the one-way speed of light. I showed that it is necessary, if one wishes to be coherent, to introduce a special system of reference (isotropic system) where it is assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic. Then, if an observer in the isotropic system judges the operation of measuring the speed of light of another observer in a system moving at constant speed v relative to the isotropic system, he will find that the observer in motion should measure a one-way speed of light dependent of v, i.e., anisotropic. But since the observer in motion can only measure round trip speeds, the average speed he will find is c, in agreement with actual experimental observations. So the observer in motion thinks that in his system the speed of light is also isotropic. Hence again, from the point of view of the observer in motion, he assumes that his system is the isotropic system and concludes that in the initial isotropic system the one-way speed of light is anisotropic although the two-way speed of light remains constant. Again we have another paradox since no observer can decide which system is the isotropic system, both are isotropic and both are anisotropic. If you are really interested in this problem you should take a look at my reference and references there in. There you will familiarize with the perplexities of special relativity. And so, probably, you will understand why one has to reintroduce the PSR; this is one way to eliminate all these antinomies.''

      This is the main point of your whole thought. This is where the PSR assumption becomes useful. Notice that without an argument as this, we should not introduce the PSR. Now comes a question of relative merits. Because the PSR cannot be seen, but the one-way speed of light also cannot, which one should we drop? Once again, I haven´t read your paper in full details, but I will assume all your conclusions there are correct.

      ''You: I don´t quietly understand that. In relativity, there is only one space-time manifold, but different basis in which we may write 4-vector an so on. So yes, time dilatation DOES occur (see the experiment where clocks in the earth and in an airplane measure different intervals for a round trip on earth), length contraction DOES occur.

      My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist)''

      Can´t see why they are real because the PSR exist.

      ''(...) but strictly speaking and in theoretical terms they are apparent. They are apparent because special relativity denies the PSR and therefore there is no real motion and no real effects (or absolute as you understand). ''

      What I tried to argue is that, although space and time measurements may be different for different observers, the EVENTS are the same! That´s what I meant when I stated that ''there is only one space-time manifold'' in relativity.

      Let´s get to a final conclusion. The PSR assumption weakens our theories in one respect (makes unobservable statements) but according to you it also explain some other phenomena. We should be aware of these strengths and weakeness in order to choose, finally, what´s the most FRUITFUL conception of motion.

      Best regards, Daniel

      Dear Israel,

      I have read your essay and I totally agree with your viewpoint. Your essay is well-written, most interesting and very impressive. I wish you good luck in the contest.

      Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

      In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

      I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

      You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

      Finally I wish to see your excellent essay high up on the list of finalists.

      Best Regards

      G S Sandhu

        Dear Sandhu

        Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. As you have may know the mainstream of physics have considered the PSR and the aether a dead issue. However, I have realized that lately the quantum vacuum or the zero point field (the modern version of the aether) is making a lot of pressure to relativity. My bet is that in the following years new discoveries in quantum mechanics and cosmology will squeeze relativity from both sides. Theoretical and experimental investigations will raise in relation to the quantum vacuum suggesting the reconsideration of the PSR and absolute motion. On the cosmological scale, some new evidences will challenge the big bang model. This is matter of time. The reason of the crisis in physics is precisely the lost of philosophical analysis. Physicists are resorting to any imaginable hypothesis to try to save their models based on relativity. Many physicists have realized that either relativity or quantum mechanics must be fundamentally wrong but they do not "see" where the problem is.

        I have read your essay which I found it interesting. I have done some works in the past similar to yours but they are totally rejected by journals. During this process, I realized that to try to contradict the established theories is futile. Instead, I think that the amount of experimental evidence will make pressure on theorists and hopefully they will realized their mistake. I believe our task is to underline the wrong assumptions and/or create a new model that competes with the prevailing one. From my part, I am endeavoring to build a new model based on the postulate that space is a fluid.

        As to the contest, many people have made similar complaints in the past. We all know that the rules are unfair, since they are designed in a such a way so that contestants eliminate each other, that is, the organizers intentionally did it that way. We cannot do anything but what is allowed by the rules. I will keep in mind your suggestions.

        Best regards

        Israel

        Hi Israel,

        I've now replied to the fresh thread you created over on my site, which is probably a good place to continue discussion.

        Cheers, Daryl

        5 days later

        Hi Israel,

        I have read your essay with great interest (its structure is really well done). That is on the one hand because (as was only to be expected) I had similar thoughts. On the other hand this stems from the fact that it was new to me that the quantum vacuum can be seen as a perfect fluid (with respect to which one can detect one's own motion?). I do think that reflections like yours (and their discussion) should be a part of any lecture about special relativity.

        (Even though I consider it to be impolite to combine my remarks to your essay with a hint to my own paper / essay I cannot fail to do so. I am anxious to know what you think about it.)

        While I was studying (theoretical physics at the Goethe Universität in Frankfurt / Germany) by chance I came across something my professors judged to be just a mathematical curiosity without any reference to reality. Now I think that what I had shown at the time is actually of relevance. According to my "curiosity" there is a necessary condition for the validity of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity (considering space and time as space-time equipped with Minkowski metric) that is not satisfied. [That is synonymous with: Not all inertial frames can be equivalent to each other (and there has to be a preferred inertial frame if we assume that space is isotropic). But since only groups of inertial frames are compared to one another it is still impossible to point out one inertial frame to be the preferred one.]

        I would be delighted if you would read my essay .

        Kind regards,

        Frank

        Dear Frank

        Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments I appreciate them much. The absolute detection of the preferred system of reference (PSR) has been very illusive though is not an impossible task. My reference 17 (Eq. 14) gives a clue, some others works have been proposed elsewhere (see also my reference 19).

        A complete formulation of space as a fluid has been developed by C. Christov. Please take a look at my reference 19 and references therein. As well you may be interested in the discussion I am having with Daryl Janzen (who also supports a preferred frame of reference) and Daniel Wagner (who denies the PSR) in both of our entires. Unfortunately, many people think that SR is the only possibility in town. It has been shown that Lorentz invariance can be derived from the assumption that space is fluid or in modern terms Planck plasma or quantum vacuum.

        With respect to your last paragraph one should distinguish what intuition perceives as space or time, and the mathematical representation of space and time. In the sense of Newton the mathematical representation is Euclidean space. In the sense of SR is Minkowski space-time. Similar to the case of Newtonian absolute space which is devoid of substance, the Minkowski space is devoid of substance, it is just the mere geometrical abstraction of rods and clocks (read Einstein's essay, geometry and experience). According to SR, space is made up of nothingness and filled with fields. This view is the result of Einstein' conception that EM fields do not require a medium for its propagation. So, according to Einstein, fields propagate through totally empty space. For this reason in his lecture of 1920 he supported the idea of the gravitational aether represented by the metric tensor. So, this is what most people believe today. However, we can invert the situation and consider that space is a fluid and that EM fields are states of the fluid. This view could solve most problems in physics. If you are interested in the view that space-time is a reality you should read Vesselin Petkov books and articles. He defends the view that Minkowski space-time is real, I disagree. I hold that space (or vacuum or aether as you wish to call it) is a substance if you are also interested in this view you should see Christov's papers.

        These days I have been very busy, I will add your essay to the list and I will make any comments I may have ASAP.

        Best regards

        Israel

          • [deleted]

          Isreal,

          Nice Essay! It looks like there are a growing number of people who realize that (using your words) SR is not the only game in town. I think I accomplished phase 1 in my essay, which is to show - using pure facts, that all of relativity cannot possibly be correct. Phase 2 is: What are the implications and what can we replace it with? One possibility (which I have been writing about since 2008) is that instead of all fundamental behaviors (responsible for motion, energy changes, etc..) being thought to exist "In" time - what if they actually "are" time? Then their interaction with background fields (or components of the fluid in the PSR that you mention) as they accelerate and move with increased velocity could be altered which might affect the rate at which all of these internal fundamental behaviors occur. This would provide a very simple local mechanism for time dilation. And when you place a system of particles in a gravitational field, the G field may be warping other background fields and/or something in the fluid to produce the same net effect. Another idea I had was similar but it relies more on the effect motion, acceleration and gravity may have on the moving particles own fields they carry.

          If we can establish a core of responsible people to acknowledge that a problem with current theories exist, then more people will be able to contribute to producing an accurate alternative. I hope we can keep this conversation going.

          Dear Chris

          Thank you for reading my essay, I am glad you found it interesting. As I understand time is nothing but change, a series of processes (the problem is that nobody understands change). In the previous contest I discussed my ontological notions of space and time. I am sure you will find them interesting. I must tell you that there are already some well developed alternatives to replace SR and GR. You may wish to take a look at my references 17 and 19 and references therein (particularly C. Christov' works). After studying for some years the foundations of physics I come across Christov' works which seem to me very reasonable. He explains all relativistic effects and unifies gravitation, electromagnetism and QM. So there is no need to build a new alternative since they are already developed. Regrettably, this kind of works contradict relativity and consequently they have been totally ignored by the mainstream. This is why they are not widely known.

          You: If we can establish a core of responsible people to acknowledge that a problem with current theories exist.

          Well, from my view, this is not a matter of responsibility but of utility, as I argue in my essay. SR was and has been very useful for the prediction of physical phenomena. And since experiments agree with its predictions the theory is held despite the paradoxes, which can be ignored for they do not affect the predictions. One should study the philosophy of science in order to understand how physicists work, what factors are crucial to overthrow a theory, why they accept or reject theories. Here as well, egos, scientific rivalry, economic interests and promotion play very important roles. So the success of a theory have several components. In order to overthrow a theory a new theory must emerge making new testable predictions and solving the problems under consideration. However a common belief among physicists is that the new theory must be reduced to the old well-established theory (which from my view is not necessary).

          Best regards

          Israel

          Dear Isreal,

          I've read your proposal concerning the existence of a preferred frame of reference. I am convinced, too, that such a PSR is really existing. But I attacked the problem of its existence from a quite different perspective.

          I came to the conclusion that the speed of light c is given twice - in two different version: as a particle-like version and as a wave-like version. The background of this thesis of a DUAL PARAMETRIZATION OF C is the wave-particle-duality of light. My thought: If light has a dual nature, it is natural to assume that the speed of light is of dual nature as well.

          This view has indeed far-reaching consequences, in particular with respect to the so-called Null experiments, that is, to the Michelson-Morley experiment (MM-Exp) and to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment (KT-Exp).

          These two experiments are not experimental proofs of the Principle of Relativity (= non-existence of PSR), but experimental proofs of these two faces of c: MM-Exp = wave-like face of c; KT-Exp = particle-like face of c.

          The ether-drift (i.e. the absolute motion) is obscured by these two faces of c in such a way, that only a very subtle residual effect remains.

          But to say it clearly, this idea of a Dual Parametrization of c is still more a vision than an elaborated theory.

          Good Luck for your essay.

          Kind Regards

          Helmut

            • [deleted]

            Hi Israel,

            Thank you for your overlooked reply of Aug. 9, 08:30.

            Having found flaws in papers by Gift myself. I nonetheless understood what you quoted from Gift as follows: Gift objected to Einstein synchronization. He assumed universal time and the constant speed of light relative to space.

            Being aware of logically circular twists to justify Einstein's convention (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/) I see Einstein's application of Poincaré synchronization not justified in case the distance AB is changing.

            Eckard